Just wondering if anyone else is following this:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=98280

This might spark a conversation about Christian unity and Ecumenism...But hopefully it doesn't turn into a foodfight

I heard. I like. But then I am catholic, so of course I like.

olias wrote:

I heard. I like. But then I am catholic, so of course I like.

I am with you! To me this looks REALLY big and I didn't see a thread on it, so I thought that I'd pop it on here.

you Catholic?

Sure am! I am just surprised that there isn't more discussion on this. I am glad to see some reconciliation between the Vatican and at least the more traditional of the Anglicans. I don't think with the present course of the Anglican movement there can be a full reconciliation.

Funny speculation I heard (so don't quote me or say it is fact) is that Rowan Williams might be keen on converting. Speculation was based on the fact that as a Catholic He could live a quieter life not having to play referee to the liberals and the traditionalists in the Anglican communion. Only thing standing in his way is his nonacceptance of the infalliability of the Pope. We'll just have to see what happens.

I am not really that versed in all of the politics of what this might mean, but just wondering if there are any Anglicans that want to weigh in.

I don't like the way the Anglican church is going.... and I've always considered the Anglicans to be very conservative and stuffy, just not as much as the Catholics


I have a lot of respect for the Catholic church, but still disagree with a lot of what they believe. I think this is a great step in the right direction, for those who want to change anyway.


Married Catholic priests will be interesting though.

Actually, the anglican church is quite liberal. And I can guaruntee you will never see married catholic priests (Although one of our current pastors does have grandchildren...though he only became a priest after his wife died). Granted, the jesuits talk about it a lot, but then they also support liberation theology, which is directly at odds with Catholicism proper.

The founders of teh Anglican Church would role over in their graves to hear about this.

It was originally founded so that the King of England could marry who ever he wanted.. and not whom the Pope demanded.

The pope doesn't demand anything. You don't HAVE to become a priest nor do you HAVE to join the Catholic church.

I'm talking about back when the Anglican Church was started... like 1200 or something.. the Pope and his Catholic Church were more powerful than kings back then and had to approve of whom royalty from any European nation married.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

I'm talking about back when the Anglican Church was started... like 1200 or something.. the Pope and his Catholic Church were more powerful than kings back then and had to approve of whom royalty from any European nation married.

Yeah, I find the history of the different Churches to be very interesting. The "rulers" of them were vicious little bastards a lot of the time. It's partially the reason I'm not comfortable with the idea of the Pope, an ultimate authority, as that authority has been greatly abused so often in the past.

It has less to do with papal authority (which is really more intellectual authority then political, at least in recent times), then the Catholic take on marriage.

This is everything you ever wanted to know about marriage from a Catholic viewpoint
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

"...as that authority has been greatly abused so often in the past."
It has, but nobody is perfect. The Church is hospital for sinners, not a muesem of saints. However, 'so often' is a wording I take issue with, because in the thousands of years the Church has been around, most Popes have been good. The ones that were bad were the ones who concerned themselves with this material world instead of our heavenly kingdom.

Also, regarding the Anglican provision, there are Anglicans who are at odds with their church. Combine this with the fact that officially, even though they are not in union with the Vatican, they do promote unity with Rome. So you can't get mad at the Catholic church for inviting members of the Anglican church to theirs. It would like getting mad at the sun for setting and rising.

Throwing in my 2 cents.

From what I understand, the reason for the Church of England being split was due to the King not being able to DIVORCE his wife only to marry another. This, as we know from the teachings of Jesus, is adultery (whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery). Now, this is different if in the case there was NO SACRAMENT (therefore no marriage to divroce). This can be sticky and really not the place to go into detail on it.

IronGuardian wrote:

Yeah, I find the history of the different Churches to be very interesting. The "rulers" of them were vicious little bastards a lot of the time. It's partially the reason I'm not comfortable with the idea of the Pope, an ultimate authority, as that authority has been greatly abused so often in the past.

Now, from a Catholic point of view of course, Jesus Himself said that He would build His church on Peter, the rock. And further more, Jesus also stated that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Just looking at that and the fact that the Catholic Church also points to Peter as the first head of the Church, is it any wonder that Jesus was correct? The Catholic Church is still here and there have been many bad popes in the history, but the CHURCH has survived.

...in contrast, could we say the same thing about the Anglican Church?

Last Rites wrote:

Throwing in my 2 cents.

From what I understand, the reason for the Church of England being split was due to the King not being able to DIVORCE his wife only to marry another. This, as we know from the teachings of Jesus, is adultery (whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery). Now, this is different if in the case there was NO SACRAMENT (therefore no marriage to divroce). This can be sticky and really not the place to go into detail on it.

And Rome has also failed to understand that you cannot force Christianity and/or Christian principles on anyone. Not a monarch, not a peasant, not a layperson, NO ONE. Period. And due to them not realizing this, and for leaning towards being more political than spiritual, a load of chaos has smeared the history of the Roman church system.

I am in no way condoning Henry VIII's adultery and immorality. If he was going to disobey the teachings of Christ anyway, then he should have been excommunicated, not on the basis of not following a pope, but on the basis of not believing Christ, because a person who claims to believe in something and yet lives in contradiction of what they claim to believe in has openly shown that they do not believe in it.

Quote :

Now, from a Catholic point of view of course, Jesus Himself said that He would build His church on Peter, the rock. And further more, Jesus also stated that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Just looking at that and the fact that the Catholic Church also points to Peter as the first head of the Church, is it any wonder that Jesus was correct? The Catholic Church is still here and there have been many bad popes in the history, but the CHURCH has survived.

...in contrast, could we say the same thing about the Anglican Church?

I love how Catholics pick and choose verses of Scripture and ultra-emphasize them out of context in order to make themselves appear to be the actual church that Christ founded. There is zero historical evidence whatsoever that there was even a papal ecclesiastical hierarchy until the late 4th century, some decades after Constantine legalized Christianity, which was simply a way for him to unite the Roman empire under one single religion rather than the 5 billion forms of paganism in that period.

I also love how Rome claims to be one in unity on everything, and claims that every other Christian group outside of it are in disunity, and constantly quarrel, etc. I have seen Catholics disagree and debate fervently and even viciously over stuff, and that doesn't even include the liberal wing of it. And what about all the semi-schismatic groups (or to serious Catholics, fully schismatic) that are within the RCC, one example being the sedavacantists, which claim that all the popes after John XXIII were and are heretics, and that the papal chair is "vacant"? There is a lot more disunity within Catholicism than what meets the eye.

Now about the Anglican church trying to join with the RCC - I'm not seeing how they could. Ash is right about the first Anglicans turning in their graves over this, as many of them were martyred (especially under Bloody Mary) for their rejection of the Pope's authority, and while Rome wants to present itself as a champion of morality in this day and age, back then they were not so understanding or kind. People were martyred by Rome, and by political powers in favor of Rome, for stuff so silly as denying infant baptism, denying transubstantiation, and of course denying the Pope's authority. Thomas Cranmer was a well known Anglican who was burned for denying the Pope's authority at the hand of Bloody Mary, all for the satisfaction and loyalty to the Roman church system. And this is why I am not understanding why they would want to join with it, when their founding fathers would much rather roast like meat at a stake than do so.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

The founders of teh Anglican Church would role over in their graves to hear about this.

Why? Is it because there is significant (theological) division amongst the Anglican ranks or that the Vatican has offered reconciliation for a significant portion of the Anglican Church?

eternalmystery wrote:

And Rome has also failed to understand that you cannot force Christianity and/or Christian principles on anyone. Not a monarch, not a peasant, not a layperson, NO ONE. Period. And due to them not realizing this, and for leaning towards being more political than spiritual, a load of chaos has smeared the history of the Roman church system.

There have been some really dark times in the Church's history as if it were attacked by the devil. However....it is still here. The Catholic Church has not EVER forced anyone to convert.

eternalmystery wrote:

I am in no way condoning Henry VIII's adultery and immorality. If he was going to disobey the teachings of Christ anyway, then he should have been excommunicated, not on the basis of not following a pope, but on the basis of not believing Christ, because a person who claims to believe in something and yet lives in contradiction of what they claim to believe in has openly shown that they do not believe in it.

You are right again. When someone is excommunicated, it is through their persistence in error against Church’s teaching (which is from Christ). It has nothing to do with what the pope "feels" is right...if that makes sense.

eternalmystery wrote:

I love how Catholics pick and choose verses of Scripture and ultra-emphasize them out of context in order to make themselves appear to be the actual church that Christ founded. There is zero historical evidence whatsoever that there was even a papal ecclesiastical hierarchy until the late 4th century, some decades after Constantine legalized Christianity, which was simply a way for him to unite the Roman empire under one single religion rather than the 5 billion forms of paganism in that period.

It turns out that my bible still has the Apocrypha and the Epistle of St. James I don't think you can claim that the Catholic Church has been "picking and choosing" scripture.

It turns out that we have the whole lineage of popes all the way back to Peter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Furthermore, How is the scripture misinterpreted (or overemphasized)? How should it be interpreted?...This may be getting off topic at hand and may need to move to theology...

eternalmystery wrote:

I also love how Rome claims to be one in unity on everything, and claims that every other Christian group outside of it are in disunity, and constantly quarrel, etc. I have seen Catholics disagree and debate fervently and even viciously over stuff, and that doesn't even include the liberal wing of it. And what about all the semi-schismatic groups (or to serious Catholics, fully schismatic) that are within the RCC, one example being the sedavacantists, which claim that all the popes after John XXIII were and are heretics, and that the papal chair is "vacant"? There is a lot more disunity within Catholicism than what meets the eye.

You know, you are right again. The RCC has a lot of internal fighting on all sorts of things. However, I go back to my original observation: it is still here and going strong. There are times and seasons of change and reform in the RCC, HOWEVER, it is changes and reforms in practice/policy etc. rather than the faith.

eternalmystery wrote:

Now about the Anglican church trying to join with the RCC - I'm not seeing how they could. Ash is right about the first Anglicans turning in their graves over this, as many of them were martyred (especially under Bloody Mary) for their rejection of the Pope's authority, and while Rome wants to present itself as a champion of morality in this day and age, back then they were not so understanding or kind. People were martyred by Rome, and by political powers in favor of Rome, for stuff so silly as denying infant baptism, denying transubstantiation, and of course denying the Pope's authority. Thomas Cranmer was a well known Anglican who was burned for denying the Pope's authority at the hand of Bloody Mary, all for the satisfaction and loyalty to the Roman church system. And this is why I am not understanding why they would want to join with it, when their founding fathers would much rather roast like meat at a stake than do so.

First off, understand that this is NOT for the Anglican Church to be engulfed by the Catholic Church, but a process for Anglicans to join the Catholic Church who are dissatisfied with the direction of the Anglican Church. What Rome has done is provide a process for Anglicans to join the Catholic Church through an agreement or communion in Faith. This is not to say that they condoned all of Rome's past actions. Now, remember too that Catholics have also been martyred for their faith at the hands of Anglicans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Second off, I think that you are having the actions of the Church in the past shroud the actual Faith of the Catholic Church. There is a lot of really bad stuff that Catholics have done in the past in the name of the Church. I won't deny it. HOWEVER, it is the faith that has not changed. Sins of the past will always be there and be a blemish on the Church. But the faith is the same and is the inner beauty. I am a Catholic because I believe in the faith of the Church, NOT because I believe that it is without blemish.

This whole conversation points out the fact that we as Christians are suffering through a time of disunity. I personally can think of only two routes to Christian unity (or some sort of linear combination of the two):
1. Ignoring all differences and be happy to call ourselves Christians or
2. Full reconciliation of all divisions.
I really think that the Catholic Church is striving for Christian unity through the reconciliation of these divisions. In fact through what the Vatican has outlined, Anglicans can continue to use their Common book of Prayer and other liturgical rites adjusted to reflect communion with Rome. The FAITH is being reconciled. So, culturally speaking, the Anglican Church will be preserved but the faith is in communion with the Catholic Church.

If what the Vatican is saying and doing is NOT in the name of Christian unity, then what other route to Christian unity exists? We can see the bad effects of all this: as minimal as name calling and has huge as murder amongst Christians. But also, we are missing the opportunity to minister to souls that do not know Christ through our disunity. As long as we cling to our differences (theologically speaking) there is no hope for unity...IMO.

Last Rites, it is nice to hear from another Catholic. I choose not to discuss it because I get rather hotheaded and am not as elequent as people like yourself. Also, I am still in a stage in my life where I need to learn more. However, the Church will always be around, whereas fads in Christianity will taper off, or evolve into different churches. God bless you brother!

olias wrote:

Last Rites, it is nice to hear from another Catholic. I choose not to discuss it because I get rather hotheaded and am not as elequent as people like yourself. Also, I am still in a stage in my life where I need to learn more. However, the Church will always be around, whereas fads in Christianity will taper off, or evolve into different churches. God bless you brother!

Thanks olias! I am also glad to find another Catholic around...can't have too many I say God bless you!

Kamerad Ash wrote:

The founders of teh Anglican Church would role over in their graves to hear about this.

It was originally founded so that the King of England could marry who ever he wanted.. and not whom the Pope demanded.

The Anglican Church (or Church of England / CoE as it was formerly known) was founded in the first century, not the "middle ages". What happened with King Henry VIII was, as someone else has noted, the Pope (Who controlled a lot of what happened politically in the mediaeval world as well as the Roman Catholic Church) did indeed refuse to grant Henry VIII a divorce, so King Henry VIII made himself the head of the church, thus making a declaration the Pope had no authority over him.


And back to the topic at hand...

From what I understand of these events is that it is mainly aimed at The Traditional Anglican Communion (Which actually isn't in communion with The Anglican Communion). The Traditional Anglican Communion is a relatively small group that broke away from The Anglican Communion in the 1980's in protest at a number of changes that were occurring in the Anglican Church at the time. For at least the last 10 years (and maybe longer) they have been trying to get acceptance within the Roman Catholic Church.

In case it helps clear things up for the Americans here... The Anglican Church in America = The Traditional Anglican Communion. and The Episcopal Church = The Anglican Communion.

That said, I guess there would be some from the Anglo-Catholic factions of the Anglican Communion who may take up this offer from the Roman Catholic Church, but I doubt that will be wide-spread. I suspect the vast majority will be like my parish. Those of us who actually take notice of what is going on in the wider Diocese and the Anglican Church in general just , , , , and as necessary, and get on with our business in our Anglo-Catholic sort of way.

The Traditional Anglican Communion though I guess will take quite readilly to this, as it is a further step in what they have been after for many years. There were stories going around at Easter this year that the Pope was poised to make an announcement similar to this, but nothing eventuated out of those stories, the same as other occassions over the last decade where similar "rumours" were circulating.

- Necromanicide

Last Rites wrote:

eternalmystery wrote:

And Rome has also failed to understand that you cannot force Christianity and/or Christian principles on anyone. Not a monarch, not a peasant, not a layperson, NO ONE. Period. And due to them not realizing this, and for leaning towards being more political than spiritual, a load of chaos has smeared the history of the Roman church system.

There have been some really dark times in the Church's history as if it were attacked by the devil. However....it is still here. The Catholic Church has not EVER forced anyone to convert.

Oh but it has. Any glance into Medieval history shows that it did happen. I don't believe it was all the time directly ordered by the papacy (it was a few times, though a lot of it was the laypeople), but at the same time, they were silent on it, and did not lift a single word or finger against it.

Last Rites wrote:

eternalmystery wrote:

I am in no way condoning Henry VIII's adultery and immorality. If he was going to disobey the teachings of Christ anyway, then he should have been excommunicated, not on the basis of not following a pope, but on the basis of not believing Christ, because a person who claims to believe in something and yet lives in contradiction of what they claim to believe in has openly shown that they do not believe in it.

You are right again. When someone is excommunicated, it is through their persistence in error against Church’s teaching (which is from Christ). It has nothing to do with what the pope "feels" is right...if that makes sense.

This was not really the case then. I see what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. However, back in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period, rejecting papal authority was pretty much to make yourself an enemy of the state, because in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, you had to be loyal to both monarch and top religious leader, which was the papacy back then, because the church and state were joined as one. This is why when America was founded that they made a law separating the church and the state, not to ban religion, but to insure freedom to the people so that they can practice whatever religion they wanted without fear of being executed or punished by the state. The founding fathers of the USA did not want to see inquisitions and the like being held on their soil, as many of them were immigrants who came from areas in Europe where this was prevalent.

Henry VIII was a political leader, and politics meant opportunity for the papacy to gain power and control. The Catholic church during that period was pretty much 100% political, and since all countries in that period, including the monarchs, were expected to be loyal to the pope, like I have previously said, opposing the papacy in that period meant you were rebelling against the state, and usually you were punished, usually either with death or with being tortured and beaten so badly that if you did live, you didn't live long afterwards.

As for the RCC's teachings being directly "handed down by the Apostles" and being "from Christ" - any research into the history of the early Christians, and comparing it to the RCC of today, will show that this claim is not true at all. Marian doctrines that are taught today took well over a millenia to develop, and were completely unknown to the early church. Another example is the forbidding of marriage of the priesthood. This was not even made dogma until roughly 1074, a good 20 years after the Great Schism took place separating the east from the west, and is blatantly unapostolic in nature. The apostle Paul even went so far as to condemn the forbidding of marriage among anyone, calling it a "doctrine of devils". Why? Well, look at the sexual immorality in the priesthood at the moment, and look at how many are easily tempted to fall in love with someone. There was a priest just recently who left the RCC and went to the Anglican church, because he fell in love, and really loved this woman, but just didn't understand why he couldn't marry this woman. The forbidding of marriage and forced celibacy has caused these men to commit immorality a lot. Paul said that if someone burns with lust that it is better for them to marry than to commit sins of immorality.
There is a reason why the Eastern Orthodox do not forbid marriage. It's because they didn't claim to gather some "new revelation" years and even centuries later.

Last Rites wrote:

eternalmystery wrote:

I love how Catholics pick and choose verses of Scripture and ultra-emphasize them out of context in order to make themselves appear to be the actual church that Christ founded. There is zero historical evidence whatsoever that there was even a papal ecclesiastical hierarchy until the late 4th century, some decades after Constantine legalized Christianity, which was simply a way for him to unite the Roman empire under one single religion rather than the 5 billion forms of paganism in that period.

It turns out that my bible still has the Apocrypha and the Epistle of St. James I don't think you can claim that the Catholic Church has been "picking and choosing" scripture.

*facepalm*

The Apocrypha was not canonized in the Catholic bible until the Council of Trent. Sure, there were people in the RCC beforehand that believed it was inspired Scripture, but there were also those who did not, one of the main ones being St. Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate. He still put it in the Latin Vulgate, but he wrote a preface explaining that he certainly did not believe it was Scripture.

And have you even picked up a protestant Bible? The KJV? NKJV? NIV? NASB? ALL of them have James in it.

Quote :

It turns out that we have the whole lineage of popes all the way back to Peter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Do you honestly believe that their lineage of popes is 100% legit? Really?

The church was under fierce persecution until Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in about 317 AD. An ecclesiastical hierarchy did not appear in history for quite some time. Most protestants are willing to say that there wasn't such a thing until a few decades after Constantine. However, the Eastern Orthodox claim is a little different. They say that until the Great Schism that every bishop addressed each other as a brother, not as holy father, vicar of Christ, etc. They say that the Bishop of Rome was claiming authority over all the other churches, and that was what resulted ultimately in the Great Schism, separating Eastern Orthodoxy from the RCC.

There were also several years that passed in between some of them where there was no bishop in Rome at all. Anywhere between 2 to 4 years where the seat was pretty much vacant. It wasn't even really implemented until after Constantine married Christianity with the Roman government.

"The Catholic Church has not EVER forced anyone to convert."

You might want to study the history of heresy and Inquisition. While you do this, please investigate the history of the Church in Scandinavia, southern France, South America and the Middle East. I think you will find volumes concerning the practice of forced conversion, persecution and intolerance.

God loves Catholics like He loves the rest of us, and like the rest of us (other denominations) there exists a rotten core who stand defianlty in the face of scripture. The Catholic Church just has the largest of the rotten cores.

mercury wrote:

The Catholic Church just has the largest of the rotten cores.

Proof?

olias wrote:

mercury wrote:

The Catholic Church just has the largest of the rotten cores.

Proof?

I assume, and hope, that he means that in the sense that the Catholic Church is the largest, numerically, and as such has a larger "rotten core" as he puts it.

I really hope he didn't mean it has the "rottenest" core...

- Necromanicide

Necromanicide wrote:

olias wrote:

mercury wrote:

The Catholic Church just has the largest of the rotten cores.

Proof?

I assume, and hope, that he means that in the sense that the Catholic Church is the largest, numerically, and as such has a larger "rotten core" as he puts it.

I really hope he didn't mean it has the "rottenest" core...

- Necromanicide

Yes Necro, I am talking numeric. All denominations have similar problems and it is sheer pride for any one of them to claim they are more holy, theologically correct or relevant. We are all sinners and all need Christ-end of story. We could spend years going through suspect theology, political decisions, historical events etc and all it would achieve would be proving we are ALL fallible, fallen and corrupt.

I have spent 20 years researching Ancient and Medieval Christianity, history etc. It is fascinating but rarely does anyone change their mind or admit they could be wrong. There is absolutely NO point in debating the issues online-it will always end up with people getting offended and becoming entrenched in their own positions. I have been one of them.

Remember the firestream theology forum? I was ashamed to see what happened-how could a non christian with no knowledge of Christ read those debates and decide that Jesus as the way?

To ask for proof demonstrates immaturity and a simple ignorance of history. The 'Church' regardless of 'denomination' has over 1500 years of ecclesiastical idiocy to its credit. Yes the Catholic Church as an institution has committed horrific atrocities-, bent theology sideways to legitimize unscriptural positions-and some are continuing today-sexual abuse etc. However, protestants have as well-how many people have turned away from Christ because of the prosperity doctrine? liberal theology etc etc.

As King Solomon is credited as having said: "Vanity of Vanities, all is vanity"


Sorry, this is Mercury-forgot to logout and in again.

unDarkness wrote:

Yes Necro, I am talking numeric. All denominations have similar problems and it is sheer pride for any one of them to claim they are more holy, theologically correct or relevant. We are all sinners and all need Christ-end of story. We could spend years going through suspect theology, political decisions, historical events etc and all it would achieve would be proving we are ALL fallible, fallen and corrupt.

I have spent 20 years researching Ancient and Medieval Christianity, history etc. It is fascinating but rarely does anyone change their mind or admit they could be wrong. There is absolutely NO point in debating the issues online-it will always end up with people getting offended and becoming entrenched in their own positions. I have been one of them.

Remember the firestream theology forum? I was ashamed to see what happened-how could a non christian with no knowledge of Christ read those debates and decide that Jesus as the way?

To ask for proof demonstrates immaturity and a simple ignorance of history. The 'Church' regardless of 'denomination' has over 1500 years of ecclesiastical idiocy to its credit. Yes the Catholic Church as an institution has committed horrific atrocities-, bent theology sideways to legitimize unscriptural positions-and some are continuing today-sexual abuse etc. However, protestants have as well-how many people have turned away from Christ because of the prosperity doctrine? liberal theology etc etc.

As King Solomon is credited as having said: "Vanity of Vanities, all is vanity"


Sorry, this is Mercury-forgot to logout and in again.

Hold on folks....I think we are getting a little bit off the topic here! This thread is on the proposal that the Vatican has offered to "traditional Anglicans" to reconcile to Rome. So let's see if we can stick to the subject at hand. If you all want to start a Medieval Catholic Church thread and about the atrocities therein, go ahead.

The one thing that I see is that EVERYONE is crying out how ununified we as Christians are. Mercury brought up a good point (maybe re-echoing what I stated earlier in the thread) that we are jeopardizing our mission to minister to hurting souls by this bickering and fighting. Maybe we should see what we are all fighting over.

The question, and I think is relevant in light of the Vatican's proposal for traditional Anglicans, is how are we / do we work towards a Christian unity? There are a lot of bold statements from people stating that they are correct and a lot of bold statements saying that people are wrong. Deciding who is right and who is wrong is NOT going to be decided here. I want to know and hear what would be a process or what are you personally doing to acheive Christian unity.

I think that the longer that we all call names and fight, the further the divide there is between us. I think that Jesus had a hint of what was to come in Luke 9:49-50. Even around Jesus' times there was division among believers.

...If you want to continue to bash the Catholic Church then start your own thread, please? I don't really have the time to keep up with this thread in a "real time" fashion. If you want to discuss with me further, send me a PM. I would be very happy to discuss further (I am particularly interested in support for claims against the Church).

True Christians are already united as one, because they are joined to Jesus Christ, not the Roman Catholic church, not the Eastern Orthodox church, and not any protestant church.

This is what I see from Rome, and other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. (NOTE: I am in no way saying that the RCC is a cult, but I am pointing out that I do see some similarities, not cultlike similarities, but rather similarities in practice. Let me explain.)

I see them saying to people, sometimes it's me, and they say:

Them: "Your church isn't one in unity."
Broc: "Oh? How so? What makes you think this?"
Them: "Because you quarrel and bicker and fight." *Note that this is a strawman argument on their part, and is a blatant misrepresentation of what born again believers affirm.*
Broc: "Then how do I achieve this unity?"
Them: "Join our church."

Do you see how they do this? They state that the only way to achieve true unity is to forsake whatever it is you believe in, and join their religious side of the playing field. And yet, when all the smoke clears and the circus acts slows down, it all is shown to be an illusion and nothing more. Every group that has been exclusivist in regards to Christians affiliated with other groups (yes, the RCC has said for several centuries that anyone outside of it is cursed and damned, until just recently when all this ecumenical junk got a big start, and they saw opportunity to try to join hands with every religion under the sun from protestantism to buddhism to islam) has claimed that they are one in unity, yet when you take a really good look and observe, the unity they claim to hold is shown to be an illusion.